New plan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revi...
New poll (closing 1 April):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled...
Bugzilla request (before poll end, but it won't be actioned until after the devs' conference in Berlin anyway):
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18244
- d.
With all due respect, this isn't exactly "new": it's been open for almost two weeks now. Is there a particular reason it's being posted to the list at this point?
- GlassCobra
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 5:48 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
New plan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revi...
New poll (closing 1 April):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled...
Bugzilla request (before poll end, but it won't be actioned until after the devs' conference in Berlin anyway):
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18244
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Alex Sawczynec glasscobra15@gmail.com wrote:
With all due respect, this isn't exactly "new": it's been open for almost two weeks now. Is there a particular reason it's being posted to the list at this point?
I didn't hear of the new poll until well after it was open. Was there a watchlist notice?
Carcharoth
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Alex Sawczynec glasscobra15@gmail.com wrote:
With all due respect, this isn't exactly "new": it's been open for almost two weeks now. Is there a particular reason it's being posted to the list at this point?
I didn't hear of the new poll until well after it was open. Was there a watchlist notice?
Correction: I heard about it on 17th March. But it was through the grapevine, not by seeing any official announcement.
Carcharoth
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Alex Sawczynec glasscobra15@gmail.com wrote:
With all due respect, this isn't exactly "new": it's been open for almost two weeks now. Is there a particular reason it's being posted to the list at this point?
I didn't hear of the new poll until well after it was open. Was there a watchlist notice?
Carcharoth
No, it was argued that a watchlist notice wasn't needed because the previous poll, with wide participation, had indicated the overall balance of opinion on flagged revisions, and this was just a modified, compromise proposal meant to address the concerns expressed in the first poll and associated discussions.
-Sage (User:Ragesoss)
2009/3/29 Alex Sawczynec glasscobra15@gmail.com:
With all due respect, this isn't exactly "new": it's been open for almost two weeks now. Is there a particular reason it's being posted to the list at this point?
The proposal's been discussed extensively on here before, but I for one had no idea there was a newly formulated proposal & poll... I'm glad it was mentioned!
2009/3/29 Alex Sawczynec glasscobra15@gmail.com:
With all due respect, this isn't exactly "new": it's been open for almost two weeks now. Is there a particular reason it's being posted to the list at this point?
Because it was the first I'd heard of it and I figured others might not have.
Is there a particular reason it shouldn't be posted to the list?
- d.
CC'd this to Foundation-l.
There is a poll currently on the English Wikipedia to implement a version of FlaggedRevisions. The poll was introduced left into the vacuum which remained after the first poll failed to result in concrete action. At the close of poll #1, Jimmy indicated that he thought it had passed and should result in an FR implementation. When he received some protest, he announced that he would shortly unveil a new compromise proposal.
While I'm sure he had the best of intentions, this proposal hasn't materialized and the result has been limbo. Into the limbo rides another proposal, this one masquerading as the hoped for compromise. Unfortunately, it isn't - at least, not in the sense that it is a middle ground between those who want FR implemented and those who oppose it. What it does do is compromise, as in fundamentally weaken, the concept of FR and the effort to improve our handling of BLPs.
The proposed implementation introduces all the bureaucracy and effort of FlaggedRevisions, with few of the benefits. FlaggedProtection, similar to semi-protection, can be placed on any article. In some instances, FlaggedProtection is identical to normal full protection - only, it still allows edit wars on unsighted versions (woohoo). Patrolled revisions are passive - you can patrol them, but doing so won't impact what the general reader will see. It gives us the huge and useless backlog which is exactly what we should not want, and exactly what the opposition has predicted. The only likely result is that inertia will prevent any further FR implementation, and we'll be stuck with a substitute that grants no real benefit.
What I would like to see, and what I have been hoping to see, is either implementation of the prior proposal (taking a form similar to that used by de.wp) or actual proposal of a true compromise version. The current poll asks us to just give up.
Nathan
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
What I would like to see, and what I have been hoping to see, is either implementation of the prior proposal (taking a form similar to that used by de.wp) or actual proposal of a true compromise version. The current poll asks us to just give up.
No, the current proposal is a conservative starting point. It is a proposal to a) get Flagged Revisions turned on and b) give the community a chance to see what it's like to use flagging in live content situation.
The proposal is designed so that the scope of flagging can be adjusted easily through policy, rather than software, changes. If the community agrees, after testing out flagged protection for the trial period, that more articles should be protected (say, all BLPs), then all it requires is consensus to change the scope of protection policy. Support probably exists to use flagging more aggressively in the future, but most editors want to take it one step at a time (or are willing to go slowly for the sake of others who want to take it one step at a time).
-Sage (User:Ragesoss)
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.comragesoss%2Bwikipedia@gmail.com
wrote:
No, the current proposal is a conservative starting point. It is a proposal to a) get Flagged Revisions turned on and b) give the community a chance to see what it's like to use flagging in live content situation.
The proposal is designed so that the scope of flagging can be adjusted easily through policy, rather than software, changes. If the community agrees, after testing out flagged protection for the trial period, that more articles should be protected (say, all BLPs), then all it requires is consensus to change the scope of protection policy. Support probably exists to use flagging more aggressively in the future, but most editors want to take it one step at a time (or are willing to go slowly for the sake of others who want to take it one step at a time).
I think this is an overly optimistic view of the post-poll future. First, your (b) benefit falls down because what the community will see is a process that takes a lot of work and provides no true improvement. Second, your assumption that future adjustments will be made "easily through policy" is extraordinarily optimistic - since when are policy alterations requiring significant changes to an extension easily made?
What happens when the 2 month trial expires? Another big poll on whether it should be extended, modified, or left in the dustbin of Wikipedia history? You should be able to predict all the oppose arguments on that next poll - its bureaucratic, it doesn't fit in with "anyone can edit", etc. Add one more - no obvious benefit to justify the big backlog of unpatrolled revisions, which *will happen* if for no other reason than patrolling revisions seems to achieve very little. The first two reasons for opposition torpedoed the first poll, and this poll offers little improvement against those largely ideological positions. Add in the third, and the chances of a superior and further implementation of FR someday down the line drop dramatically.
Nathan
Two more problems:
1) This just barely made it on the watchlist notice, with a whopping one day for further participation.
2) None of the details on how the trial will actually work have been determined. Questions and opposition along these lines have been primarily met with "We'll work that out when the poll closes."
Nice.
Nathan
(expanded opinion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avruch/FlaggedRevs_vs._NPP)
Nathan wrote:
Two more problems:
- This just barely made it on the watchlist notice, with a whopping one day
for further participation.
- None of the details on how the trial will actually work have been
determined. Questions and opposition along these lines have been primarily met with "We'll work that out when the poll closes."
Nice.
Nathan
(expanded opinion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avruch/FlaggedRevs_vs._NPP) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
First sensible response I've seen to this. I thought I was on my own as being a determined BLP warrior (or worrier) who opposed this ridiculous thing.
It seems to be a victory of "something must be done - and this is something" over common sense.
This does nothing at all for BLP subjects, screws flagged revisions, and introduces a nightmare, all at once.
Nice indeed.
Scott
I didn't see any lazylinks in this thread, so appearently *this* is the poll being discussed here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled...
Will Johnson
And yet this poll seems to have significantly more support across the board than any other proposal that has been put forward. If there's another way of taking it forward that would have sufficient support, let's hear it.
----- Original Message ----- From: "doc" doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 30 March, 2009 23:23:31 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2
Nathan wrote:
Two more problems:
- This just barely made it on the watchlist notice, with a whopping one day
for further participation.
- None of the details on how the trial will actually work have been
determined. Questions and opposition along these lines have been primarily met with "We'll work that out when the poll closes."
Nice.
Nathan
(expanded opinion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avruch/FlaggedRevs_vs._NPP) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
First sensible response I've seen to this. I thought I was on my own as being a determined BLP warrior (or worrier) who opposed this ridiculous thing.
It seems to be a victory of "something must be done - and this is something" over common sense.
This does nothing at all for BLP subjects, screws flagged revisions, and introduces a nightmare, all at once.
Nice indeed.
Scott
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey@googlemail.com
wrote:
And yet this poll seems to have significantly more support across the board than any other proposal that has been put forward. If there's another way of taking it forward that would have sufficient support, let's hear it.
Sure. The last poll had majority support, and much of the opposition described rationales which contained obvious errors of fact and understanding. That is the case in this poll as well, of course, but given that the last one was far superior in terms of its ultimate impact... The first poll should be regarded as successful, and the implementation of actual FlaggedRevisions completed.
Nathan
Your argument is spurious.
It may well be that this proposal is the only one that would pass - but that neither means that it is good, nor that it is a good thing that it is passing.
The proposal IMO is damaging to the cause of using flagged revisions in a manner that will help BLP victims.
Doing nothing would be better than this.
Your argument is the logical fallacy that because "something must be done" means "anything is better than the status quo", or that "any movement is a step in the right direction" - which does not consider that one can move, and move in the wrong direction.
Andrew Turvey wrote:
And yet this poll seems to have significantly more support across the board than any other proposal that has been put forward. If there's another way of taking it forward that would have sufficient support, let's hear it.
----- Original Message ----- From: "doc" doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 30 March, 2009 23:23:31 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2
Nathan wrote:
Two more problems:
- This just barely made it on the watchlist notice, with a whopping one day
for further participation.
- None of the details on how the trial will actually work have been
determined. Questions and opposition along these lines have been primarily met with "We'll work that out when the poll closes."
Nice.
Nathan
(expanded opinion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avruch/FlaggedRevs_vs._NPP) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
First sensible response I've seen to this. I thought I was on my own as being a determined BLP warrior (or worrier) who opposed this ridiculous thing.
It seems to be a victory of "something must be done - and this is something" over common sense.
This does nothing at all for BLP subjects, screws flagged revisions, and introduces a nightmare, all at once.
Nice indeed.
Scott
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, the poll was closed with 80% support. It probably should have been extended, if for no other reasons than that votes continued to come in at a pretty good clip and there is no pressing reason to close it on deadline.
If I were a developer or a WMF executive, I might pause at implementing a proposal for quite significant change on the English Wikipedia based on a poll with only 320 participants.
Nathan
On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Nathan wrote:
Well, the poll was closed with 80% support. It probably should have been extended, if for no other reasons than that votes continued to come in at a pretty good clip and there is no pressing reason to close it on deadline.
If I were a developer or a WMF executive, I might pause at implementing a proposal for quite significant change on the English Wikipedia based on a poll with only 320 participants.
If I were a developer or a WMF executive, I might pause at allowing major changes to be made at the whims of a community as cancerous as ours.
-Phil
There is more to Wikipedia than BLP.
2009/3/31 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
Your argument is spurious.
It may well be that this proposal is the only one that would pass - but that neither means that it is good, nor that it is a good thing that it is passing.
The proposal IMO is damaging to the cause of using flagged revisions in a manner that will help BLP victims.
Doing nothing would be better than this.
Your argument is the logical fallacy that because "something must be done" means "anything is better than the status quo", or that "any movement is a step in the right direction" - which does not consider that one can move, and move in the wrong direction.
Andrew Turvey wrote:
And yet this poll seems to have significantly more support across the board than any other proposal that has been put forward. If there's another way of taking it forward that would have sufficient support, let's hear it.
----- Original Message ----- From: "doc" doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 30 March, 2009 23:23:31 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2
Nathan wrote:
Two more problems:
- This just barely made it on the watchlist notice, with a whopping one day
for further participation.
- None of the details on how the trial will actually work have been
determined. Questions and opposition along these lines have been primarily met with "We'll work that out when the poll closes."
Nice.
Nathan
(expanded opinion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avruch/FlaggedRevs_vs._NPP) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
First sensible response I've seen to this. I thought I was on my own as being a determined BLP warrior (or worrier) who opposed this ridiculous thing.
It seems to be a victory of "something must be done - and this is something" over common sense.
This does nothing at all for BLP subjects, screws flagged revisions, and introduces a nightmare, all at once.
Nice indeed.
Scott
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l